Product Liability Risks for
Distributors: The Basics
Susan E. Burnett
Bowman and Brooke LLP
Whereas . . . .
• State laws vary widely and
change frequently,
• Every case is different,
• I'm not your lawyer . .
Disclaimer:
This Webinar discusses only general legal concepts and
does not purport to provide a statement of the current
law applicable in any State. Its purpose is to provide
participants with information on a current legal topic of
general interest and nothing herein shall be construed
to create, offer or memorialize the existence of an
attorney-client relationship. The content should not be
considered legal advice or opinion, because it may not
apply to the specific facts of a particular matter.
So, Why Are Distributors Who Didn't Make
the Supposedly Defective Product Liable
To Begin With??
A Brief History of Strict Liability . . .
(bear with me)
Why Strict Liability?
Nineteenth-Century Philosophy:
Protect the Manufacturer
• ―Privity of contract‖ limited warranty
liability to remote buyers.
• Tort liability depended concept of fault.
• Better to leave a consumer without a
remedy than impose too heavy costs
on sellers.
Why Strict Liability?
Twentieth-Century Philosophy:
Protect the Consumer
• How should society apportion cost of
harm caused by products?
• Even if no negligence, fairer to impose
cost on product-maker, not consumer .
The Usual
Suspect . . .
Strict Liability—The Beginning
• Greenman v. Yuba Power Products,
Inc. (California Supreme Court 1963).
• "A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort
when an article he places on the
market, knowing that it is to be used
without inspection for defects, proves to
have a defect that causes injury to a
human being."
The Economic Philosophy of
Strict Liability
• "The purpose of such liability is to insure that
the costs of injuries resulting from defective
products are borne by the manufacturers that
put such products on the market rather than by
the injured persons who are powerless to
protect themselves."
• "Even if there is no negligence . . . public policy
demands that responsibility be fixed wherever
it will most effectively reduce the hazards to life
and health inherent in defective products that
reach the market."
What Does Strict Liability Mean?
• Liability to remote buyers - no need for
privity of contract.
• Manufacturer can't limit liability through
contract.
• No need to prove manufacturer did
something wrong as long as product
defective.
Three Types of Product Defect
• Design
• Manufacturing
• Warnings
But What About Sellers Who
Didn't Make the Supposedly
Defective Product?
Key Concept Is No More
Negligence
• Strict Liability = No-Fault Liability.
• Focus on the product, not the behavior
of the product-maker.
• Rationale is to fairly apportion costs,
not make wrongdoers pay.
Which Means . . .
• Same policy reasons for imposing costs
on manufacturers apply to distributors
and retailers.
• "Retailers . . . are an integral part of the
overall producing and marketing
enterprise that should bear the cost of
injuries resulting from defective
products." Vandermark v. Ford Motor
Co. (California Supreme Court 1964).
Arguments For Strict
Liability of Distributors—Part I
• Are part of and benefit from the
"marketing chain."
• Can adjust costs upstream through
ongoing business relationship with
manufacturer.
• Can pass costs downstream to next
player in the marketing chain.
Arguments For Strict
Liability of Distributors—Part II
• Provides deterrence to the sale of
defective products by giving distributors
an incentive to exert pressure on
manufacturers.
• Distributors are protected because they
can seek indemnity from the
manufacturer.
Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 402A (1965)
(adopted in some form by most states)
One who sells any product in a defective condition
unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to
his property, is subject to liability for physical harm
thereby caused to the ultimate user or consumer, or to
his property if:
The seller is engaged in the business of selling
such a product, and
It is expected to and does reach the user or
consumer without substantial change in the
condition in which it is sold.
Restatement (Second)
of Torts § 402A
Strict Liability applies even if :
The seller has exercised all possible care
in the preparation and sale of his product,
and
The user of consumer has not bought the
product from or entered into any
contractual relation with the seller.
The Dissent
Arguments Against Strict
Liability for Distributors—Part I
• Although literally "sellers" of goods, no
real control over quality of goods.
• Contribute nothing to the danger.
• Naïve to think they can put pressure on
manufacturers.
Arguments Against Strict
Liability for Distributors—Part II
• Indemnity is expensive—
Two lawsuits – one to defend against
plaintiff and one to recover from
manufacturer.
• Indemnity is not a sure thing—
Downstream seller must prove defect
when product left manufacturer.
Tort Reform For
Distributors and Retailers
At One End of the Spectrum
Georgia
• Only product manufacturers can be
strictly liable.
• Manufacturer = one who "sells a
product and has input or is actively
involved in the design, concept, or
specifications of the product.
More Commonly, Distributor
Liability is Limited, not Eliminated
E.g., Texas Statute Governing Liability of
Nonmanufacturing Sellers (2003)
Nonmanufacturing seller not
liable to user unless it —
• Participated in the design of product,
• Altered or modified design of product,
• Installed the product and harm resulted from
installation,
• Exercised substantial control over content of
inadequate warning that caused harm,
• Made an incorrect, express factual representation on
which consumer relied,
• Actually knew of a defect that caused harm, or
• Manufacturer is (i) insolvent; or (ii) not subject to
jurisdiction in Texas.
Another Example: Idaho
• Nonmanufacturing seller not liable if no warranty or
opportunity to inspect, unless:
 Knew of defect
 Seller's alteration caused injury
 Seller's design caused injury
 Seller a wholly-owned subsidiary of manufacturer
or vice versa
 Product sold after manufacturer's expiration date.
• But if manufacturer is insolvent or outside court's
jurisdiction, seller still liable.
Texas Statute Requiring
Indemnity By Manufacturers (1993)
"A manufacturer shall indemnify and hold
harmless a seller against loss arising out
of a products liability action, except for
any loss caused by the seller's
negligence, intentional misconduct, or
other act or omissions, such as
negligently modifying or altering the
product, for which the seller is
independently liable."
Two More Important Potential
Limitations on Liability
Comparative Fault
• Jury assigns a percentage to each
potentially liable party, including
plaintiff.
• Where distributor is a mere "conduit"
and was not negligent, percentage
could be low or none.
Joint and Several Liability
• Traditional View: all defendants are
liable for full amount of damages.
Risk of insolvency of a defendant borne by
other defendants.
• Modern View: limits on joint and several
liability; e.g. only applies to a defendant
more than 50% at fault.
I've Been Sued As a Distributor
What Now?
(Finally, some practical advice.)
Why Were You Sued?
• Manufacturer outside court's
jurisdiction.
• Manufacturer insolvent (or likely to be).
• Sue first and ask questions later.
• Negligence apart from strict liability as
seller.
Are You A Jurisdictional
Pawn?
• Federal law may allow a defendant to
remove a case from state to federal
court if its citizenship is different from
the plaintiffs'.
• Distributors frequently chosen based on
same citizenship as at least one plaintiff
to prevent removal.
• Affects distributor's strategy for getting
out of case.
Discuss With Your Counsel:
• Should you cooperate with the
manufacturer to remove the case based
on fraudulent joinder?
E.g., if a Texas-style statute, can you
provide an affidavit negating liability?
• If the manufacturer will agree not to
remove, will the plaintiff dismiss you?
What Are Your Defenses As a
Nonmanufacturing Seller?
• Which state's law applies is critical.
• Applicable law may not be that of the
state where you were sued.
• Determine early on if choice-of-law will
be an issue and what choices are.
Early Exit Strategy
• Did plaintiff plead proper elements of
distributor liability under applicable law?
Motion to dismiss
• Can you readily negate bases of liability
with an affidavit? (e.g., no participation
in design)
Motion for Summary Judgment
What are your indemnity rights
and obligations?
• Statutory indemnity
• Common law indemnity.
• Contractual indemnity
Indemnity Issues to Consider
•
•
•
•
Provide timely notice
Tender defense
Separate counsel
Recoverability of costs of defense
What if you did not distribute product?
Potential Defenses Unique to
Life Sciences Products
• Learned Intermediary Doctrine
• Federal Preemption
• State Statutes Limiting Liability for
FDA-Approved Products
• Restatement (Third) § 6(c) Standard for
Design Defect
Minimizing Litigation Risk
Who Is Your Manufacturer?
• Foreign (outside jurisdiction)
Recent recalls of Chinese pet food, drugs,
other consumer goods.
• Financial Health
• History of Lawsuits
Can You Inspect for Defects?
• Sealed Container Doctrine
• Negligent Inspection
• Contamination or other manufacturing
defects
Can You Contract Away
Some Risk?
• Applicable Law
• Indemnity
• Costs of Defense
If wrongfully sued
If settlement but no verdict on separate
negligence claims
• Agree to Jurisdiction
Thank you.
Susan E. Burnett
Bowman and Brooke LLP